Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27482498›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2016

Systematic Review of Quality of Patient Information on Liposuction in the Internet.

Grzegorz Zuk, Adrian Fernando Palma, Gertraud Eylert, Dimitri Aristotle Raptis, Merlin Guggenheim, Maziar Shafighi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Quality assessment of patient information on orthognathic surgery on the internet.Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2020
    Article
  11. A cross sectional review of patient information available in the World Wide Web on CyberKnife: fallacies and pitfalls.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  12. Contemporary Koreans' Perceptions of Facial Beauty.Archives of plastic surgery · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Grzegorz ZukDepartment of Surgery, Citizens' Hospital Solothurn, Solothurn, Switzerland; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Olten, Olten, Switzerland; and Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Adrian Fernando PalmaDepartment of Surgery, Citizens' Hospital Solothurn, Solothurn, Switzerland; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Olten, Olten, Switzerland; and Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Gertraud EylertDepartment of Surgery, Citizens' Hospital Solothurn, Solothurn, Switzerland; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Olten, Olten, Switzerland; and Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Dimitri Aristotle RaptisDepartment of Surgery, Citizens' Hospital Solothurn, Solothurn, Switzerland; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Olten, Olten, Switzerland; and Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Merlin GuggenheimDepartment of Surgery, Citizens' Hospital Solothurn, Solothurn, Switzerland; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Olten, Olten, Switzerland; and Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Maziar ShafighiDepartment of Surgery, Citizens' Hospital Solothurn, Solothurn, Switzerland; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Olten, Olten, Switzerland; and Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA large number of patients who are interested in esthetic surgery actively search the Internet, which represents nowadays the first source of information. However, the quality of information available in the Internet on liposuction is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of patient information on liposuction available in the Internet.

methodsThe quantitative and qualitative assessment of Web sites was based on a modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool (36 items). Five hundred Web sites were identified by the most popular web search engines.

resultsTwo hundred forty-five Web sites were assessed after duplicates and irrelevant sources were excluded. Only 72 (29%) Web sites addressed >16 items, and scores tended to be higher for professional societies, portals, patient groups, health departments, and academic centers than for Web sites developed by physicians, respectively. The Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score achieved by Web sites ranged between 8 and 29 of total 36 points, with a median value of 16 points (interquartile range, 14-18). The top 10 Web sites with the highest scores were identified.

conclusionsThe quality of patient information on liposuction available in the Internet is poor, and existing Web sites show substantial shortcomings. There is an urgent need for improvement in offering superior quality information on liposuction for patients intending to undergo this procedure.

Identifiers

PMID27482498
PMCPMC4956871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.